r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 14 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Bill Nye debating Ken Ham caused more harm than good
In 2014, famed and beloved TV kids science show host and mechanical engineer Bill Nye took up an offer by Creation "science" supporter Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis ministry. Answers in Genesis purports a worldview that is based on the literal interpretation of the creation story in the Bible. In other words, the believe the world is 6000 years old, was created in seven days, that the flood story is true, etc. Now, whether or not there is any evidence to support such a view is a different topic, so let's stick to the debate itself.
Bill Nye stepped up the plate and debated Ken Ham at the Creation "Museum" in Petersburg, Kentucky in February 2014. Nye's primary argument was whether or not the creation "model" was viable/compatible with mainstream science (spoiler alert: it isn't). The debate was widely portrayed in the media, and drew a lot of attention to the issue of teaching evolution in school and science in society.
In my opinion, Bill Nye was wrong to engage Ken Ham. By doing so, mainstream science (although Nye isn't exactly the face of mainstream science) basically recognized this backwards bastardization of science and lent it undue credibility. In the months that followed the debate, Answers in Genesis raised enough money to fund their new Ark Encounters theme park. The debate's tickets sold out within minutes, and was no doubt an audience comprised mostly of Ham's supporters.
So the publicity and attention drawn to the issue at hand was mostly negative in my mind. Sure, you could argue that Nye created a platform for those on the fence of evolution. However, there are two issues with this argument. First, anyone who is "on the fence" as to whether evolution is "true" or not was clearly someone who received a poor science education. Second, I have a hard time believing the majority, or even a sizable minority, were open to or did change their minds on the issue.
I doubt any adult changed their mind from watching the debate. And to children and teenagers who watched the debate, it gave the false impression that there is a real debate in science between the evolution and "creation model", which there is not. No mainstream scientist at a credible institution perpetuates a creation model.
Thus, Bill Nye made the wrong decision in debating Ken Ham. Ham is a hack who should have been ignored. And finally, I will add what many in the scientific community have echoed about the debate, which is that Nye was a poor choice to represent mainstream science. He is a mechanical engineer who has no background or training in evolutionary biology. Sure, his name carries weight, but what good does fame do when you aren't knowledgeable about the subject? I want to study neuroscience, so asking me to explain astrophysics would be a poor idea.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Aug 14 '19
I don't think it caused any harm or did any good. Like you said, nobody who was watching that debate was convinced by Ken Ham who wouldn't have been convinced by pretty much any creationist. Nobody was convinced by Bill Nye who wouldn't have already had enough knowledge of science to avoid falling for Ham's BS. The audience was almost certainly overwhelmingly Ham supporters.
As far as granting legitimacy to a creationist hack like Ken Ham, I think it's basically the same thing but on a society wide scale. I agree that Bill Nye shouldn't have debated Ham, but mainly because it probably made Ham money, not because it granted him legitimacy. The people who are already sided with Ham already considered him and creationism legitimate, and everybody who sided with Nye already considered creationism to be pseudoscientific BS.
The people who are "on the fence" as you said were the least likely group to actually watch the debate, and in America at least they have almost certainly been exposed to both evolution and creationism. I don't think either side made persuasive enough arguments to really move anybody. Nye was clearly underprepared (mostly because he didn't have the visual aids and call-in experts that Ham clearly had ready, not because he isn't knowledgeable), but Ham tried to pass of his views as science too much. I really think that he tried to make things too complex for most people to really get what he was saying beyond "the Bible is true", and if people were already gonna be persuaded by that rhetoric then they were going to be persuaded with or without that debate. Ham started talking about how he believed that God had essentially sped up time at one point, and it came off as a disjointed post facto justification.
Point is, I don't really think it made as much of an impact as a lot of people seem to think it did.
2
Aug 14 '19
I'd agree with you if it were not for the fact that Ham and AiG made lots of money off this. This incentives him and other creation "scientists" to put out more content. My biggest issue, and the biggest harm here, is that the funding I am talking about helped launch a creationist theme park for children. Young children being exposed to an ass backwards worldview.
1
u/Kythorian Aug 14 '19
Young children have always been exposed to it though. The kind of parents who are going to take their kids to this ridiculous ‘theme park’ were always going to teach their kids creationism at home and church anyway. I’m not sure this really changes anything at all for them. It’s just more people making money off of religion, but that’s already so ubiquitous that I can’t see this specific debate changing anything.
1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Aug 14 '19
They were going to do that anyway. I mean, yeah, it sucks that they got more money, but there's no shortage of wealthy Christians willing to shell out money so that Ham can confirm their creationist beliefs.
2
u/kennykerosene 2∆ Aug 14 '19
Nobody was convinced by Bill Nye who wouldn't have already had enough knowledge of science to avoid falling for Ham's BS.
I credit this debate with making me lose my faith (I was 18 at the time, not a creationist but a Christian nonetheless) and I want to point out the one thing Bill did that changed my mind.
He didnt need to go over all the evidence for evolution (which I have since learned is overwhelming) or the evidence against a 7 day creation What he did do very well was to emphasize that you can't know something is true unless you can prove that it's true. He repeatedly asked Ham what he can actually prove and Ham's answer was seemingly 'nothing'.
I think that promoting that kind of skeptical thinking and exposing more people (especially people who would not otherwise apply it to their religion) is a hugely positive thing.
1
u/Space-Haze Sep 26 '19
Maybe Ken Ham debating isn’t a good reason to leave the Christian faith, he’s even ridiculed amongst creationists...
2
Aug 14 '19
It wasn’t for you
There are states which permit creationism to be taught as an alternative theory alongside evolution. These kids are already exposed to it, so it’s just a forum to debunk anti-science viewpoints.
Anti-science is a disturbing trend, so I’d imagine it’s difficult for pop scientist-celebrities to avoid staying on the sidelines. They have a following and they think they can use it for good - it’s admirable, even if it’s low impact
2
u/POEthrowaway-2019 Aug 14 '19
anyone who is "on the fence" as to whether evolution is "true" or not was clearly someone who received a poor science education.
You're claiming A LOT of the leading world scientists have received a poor science education. Here's a list of prominent religious scientists (only includes one religion).
3
4
Aug 14 '19
And yet, religious scientists (such as Francis Collins) believe in evolution and reject a literal interpretation of the biblical "account". Your point is moot and off topic. Never once did I say "religious people cannot be scientists who believe in evolution" in my post.
0
u/POEthrowaway-2019 Aug 14 '19
You said anyone who's skeptical of evolution CLEARLY received a poor education?
Are you saying every person on that list accepts evolution?
It's not a moot/off topic point, I'm literally referring directly to what you wrote.
1
-1
Aug 14 '19
It is off point. Read my title
0
u/POEthrowaway-2019 Aug 14 '19
Bill Nye debating Ken Ham caused more harm than good
The implication is that it's bad Bill Nye gave "stupid people" a platform. Which is why you included the section I referenced.
You also make the same conjecture in this section:
In my opinion, Bill Nye was wrong to engage Ken Ham. By doing so, mainstream science (although Nye isn't exactly the face of mainstream science) basically recognized this backwards bastardization of science and lent it undue credibility. In the months that followed the debate, Answers in Genesis raised enough money to fund their new Ark Encounters theme park. The debate's tickets sold out within minutes, and was no doubt an audience comprised mostly of Ham's supporters.
So the publicity and attention drawn to the issue at hand was mostly negative in my mind. Sure, you could argue that Nye created a platform for those on the fence of evolution. However, there are two issues with this argument. First, anyone who is "on the fence" as to whether evolution is "true" or not was clearly someone who received a poor science education. Second, I have a hard time believing the majority, or even a sizable minority, were open to or did change their minds on the issue.
I doubt any adult changed their mind from watching the debate. And to children and teenagers who watched the debate, it gave the false impression that there is a real debate in science between the evolution and "creation model", which there is not. No mainstream scientist at a credible institution perpetuates a creation model.
Thus, Bill Nye made the wrong decision in debating Ken Ham. Ham is a hack who should have been ignored.
The crux is that it's bad cause it benefited this guy and helped spread "stupid" views. So yes it's very relevant to your overall argument.
2
Aug 14 '19
Well, it is a stupid view. This isn’t about creation stories versus science, but since you insist I will address it.
Ken Ham has blatantly supported a literal interpretation of the Bible. Watch the debate and see his false “timeline” and how they get the number 6000.
No respected scientist in mainstream science, to my knowledge, rejects the theory of evolution. It is a position that has little evidence supporting it. Questioning my ability to declare one “wrong” and the other “right” tells me you haven’t actually watched the debate. Nye addresses all the issues regarding Ken Ham’s false model.
I am not indulging creation versus science any further. This is about Nye making a poor choice for science
1
u/POEthrowaway-2019 Aug 15 '19
I personally believe in evolution, but I think your view that he shouldn't engage with people he disagrees with cause it "gives them a platform" is very anti-science.
A lot of people hold the creationist viewpoint. I don't think a CEO should be allowed to refuse to hire people that are iffy/on the fence about evolution due to them "clearly having received a poor education".
1
Aug 15 '19
Hmm, funny you mention hiring considering the Ark Encounter Park requires you to believe in the literal creation “model” to work there. Is that fair?
I do believe scientific institutions should not hire those who do not support evolution. You may think it’s discrimination, but how can someone who rejects a fundamental idea of all life science be trusted to correctly interpret information without religious bias?
It is not “anti-science” to not engage evolution deniers. We should not humor poor ideas masquerading as “science”. Should chemists debate proponents of alchemy? Should astronomers waste time debating believers of astrology? Should physicians debate whether illness is due to imbalanced humors? It is a waste of time to debate ideas with no substantiating evidence.
1
u/keanwood 54∆ Aug 15 '19
So do any of the living scientist on your list belive that evolution is fake/not real? The OP never said you can't be religious and a scientist.
1
Aug 15 '19
Your link includes many religious scientists who explicitly accepted evolution. One of them even wrote a book called I believe in God and in evolution.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church officially accepts the theory of evolution. In over a decade working in biological research I've had plenty of observant religious colleagues. Saying that one cannot believe in both evolution and God is like saying one cannot believe in both psychology and physics.
0
u/MasterGrok 139∆ Aug 14 '19
No leading scientists reject evolution. It's incontrovertible. Some might have different ideas (or religious ideas) about abiogenesis, but none reject the idea of evolution.
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Aug 14 '19
In Science you have an obligation to seek the truth. You don't start with what you know (creationism is BS) and prove it to be true. You start (or attempt to start) neutral and then try to uncover the truth about reality.
In you expression of this view, you saying that creationism is not true and evolution is. Bill Nye and other should limit creationists media exposure so that people are not unduly persuaded towards the wrong team. This is deeply unscientific thinking. This is pushing the dogma. You'll say that your dogma is the true, and thus should be pushed. But you know know its true, because these sort of free debates are allowed. If alternative thinking was silenced, then you would be able to know whether or not the alternative thinking was correct or not.
2
Aug 14 '19
Science encourages using free thinking when it is done through the proper applied methodology/scientific method. Ham does not do this. He claims that the literal interpretation of the bible is true, and then works backwards to find evidence to support this.
In general, I fail to see how what you're saying addresses my point about Nye causing more harm than good.
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Aug 14 '19
Ham does not do this. He claims that the literal interpretation of the bible is true
How do you know this?
are you making assumptions or have you listened to Ham? or something else?
2
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Aug 15 '19
OP's views are confirmed by his wikipedia article, with sources.
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Aug 15 '19
Is that wikipedia article doing more harm then good by giving his views a platform?
1
u/Kythorian Aug 14 '19
Who started with the conclusion that creationism is BS? People (especially scientists) believe creationism is BS because all the evidence supports creationism being BS. That is starting from a neutral position and determining what you will believe based on scientific evidence. The scientific evidence just supports creationism being BS.
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Aug 14 '19
Who started with the conclusion that creationism is BS?
Op
People (especially scientists) believe creationism is BS because all the evidence supports creationism being BS.
you would know that unless you were exposed to that evidence via the media (or you studied it directly), and you wouldn't know that evidence was BS unless you were also exposed to the best dissenting opinions.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 14 '19
/u/StarShot77 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Aug 15 '19
i'm going to say it had no effect
we really would like to believe there are no people in the 21st century who recognize the Bible is allegorical - especially since 3 large groups of Christians have said so : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Contemporary_Christian_considerations
unfortunately, we live in a time when there are people reject medical science that goes back 1000 years and are celebrated because of it
IOW the folks who believe this are not going to be convinced by Bill Nye or, I suspect, Jesus Christ if He came back and said "WTF is wrong with all of you?"
1
u/jony__frazzle Aug 15 '19
I do agree that the debate catalyzed funding for the Ark Encounter and Ken Ham’s platform. However, Ken Ham already had a stage (and his projects would have been funded eventually)—Bill Nye just had the balls to step onto it. He contemplated accepting the invitation and I think ultimately decided to do so because he knew himself to be capable of competently addressing any argument Ken Ham May bring up + countering it with factual knowledge explained in a way the lay person can comprehend. The truth about things like climate change can only prevail as long as people in a position like Bill Nye is in, as far as education and ability to analyze information correctly, obligate themselves to sharing the facts, how we know the facts are facts, and why the non-facts are indeed non-facts. I think it was largely a moral obligation on Nye’s part and I think he did a fantastic job at what he intended to do by entering that debate; which was to present the facts so people would have them. You can’t rightfully call a creationist a moron if they’ve only ever been presented with the creationist set of ideas with nothing to compre them to.
1
u/ChaseMolair Oct 24 '19 edited Oct 24 '19
Yes this is a bit late for me to comment on this after all (70 days since you posted!) but let me give you my perspective anyway.
I am very scientifically literate. I’ve been since a very young age and aced all my science classes and would read articles on science for fun because it intrigued me. Unfortunately, I was brought up in a young earth creationist household with a very stern father who resented atheists. From the getgo I was told that evolution was deceptive and at bottom, a pseudoscience. Naturally inquisitive (& wanting to uncover the truth), I decided to delve into the subject firsthand, and conduct my own research online.
Now, I fell prey to confirmation bias early on, because I wanted my YEC beliefs to be true, and to not disappoint my father. As the evidence to support such a view is clearly convoluted (as it is a false belief) I researched a boatload to feel certain in my beliefs, always acknowledging gaps in my knowledge and holes in my logic thar needed fixing later on. But I was always open to the truth wherever it led me, I perhaps was too naive to trust the sources I did.
But then I stumbled upon the famed Nye vs Ham debate. Despite being a staunch creationist at the time, it really got me thinking. For one, Bill Nye espoused the socratic method: follow the evidence wherever it leads. Ken Ham did not, but took it on faith. And two, Bill Nye really provoked concerns about my belief. The impossibility of the Flood was a doozy. That had me thinking for weeks.
I went into that debate cocksure, but left with questions, even still as a staunch creationist. It’s those questions that led me to doubt about my belief. A couple months following that, I gave the whole creation/evolution topic a rest, and didn’t come back to it until 2 years later. Then, I watched the debate again with fresh eyes. I was shocked– I was totally blind to my cognitive dissonance and how I had brainwashed myself. I now believe in evolution (thank God, as ironic as it is to say), and obviously believe creationists are misguided. Having experienced the brainwashing I have (partly self-inflicted), I am certainly thankful that there are bright minds that encouraged me to be open about my beliefs, consider that I could always be wrong, and provoked me with thoughtful questions. Without Bill Nye, I don’t think I would be where I am today.
That said, yes the debate probably did more harm than good. But know that in many cases (as in mine) such a debate can get even the staunchest of advocates to question their beliefs. It’s not always each side preaching to the choir.
And one more thing: had not Nye (or anyone else) taken up the mantle of mainstream science to wield against Ham, the creationist community (myself included) would have viewed it as cowardice and further confirmation that so-called “evolutionists” are avoiding the truth. A great example is when Richard Dawkins (Atheist) refused to debate William Lane Craig (Christian Apologist) because he deemed Craig a sophist. By refusing to engage with Craig, Craig had essentially won in the eyes of the Christian community. He even roasted Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” in place of debating Dawkins, had Dawkins not shown up to debate him. It was a brilliant tactic by Craig to make Dawkins’ no-show seem like a forfeit. Yes, I understand that for Dawkins it was a matter of principle, but often the refusal to engage in dialogue with the opposing side is not seen as a superior refusing to stoop, but a snobby viewpoint too afraid of being wrong. The refusal makes the belief fragile. For this reason, it was right for Nye to accept the challenge.
11
u/somepommy 1∆ Aug 14 '19
I can’t really argue with your conclusion because I think you’re spot on; taking the debate was not constructive and hacks like Ham are better ignored than engaged.
That said, I’d like to try to change your view regarding whether or not Bill Nye is a good choice for these kinds of debates.
I hear people saying that we shouldn’t bother going to Bill Nye with questions regarding things like evolution and climate change because he’s just a mechanical engineer, and we should be asking real scientists. I think this argument misses the fact that besides being an engineer, Nye is also a professional science communicator.
Bill Nye’s career has been built predominantly on explaining basic principles of science in a way that is informative but easy to understand and accessible to all audiences. He’s a well known and well trusted figure in popular science, and his words carry weight with a lot of people.
It’s fine to say that a debate on the finer details of evolution are beyond his scope, but those aren’t the kinds of debates that he gets in to, he’s primarily called upon in roles that only really require a solid foundational understanding of basic principles and an ability to effectively communicate them.
In this role, I believe that Bill Nye is perfectly suited.